☆ Silver Patron ☆
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Thurisaz last won the day on October 25 2016

Thurisaz had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,703 Wow

About Thurisaz

  • Rank
    Warrior of Thor
  • Birthday 05/09/1970

Contact Methods

  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Northern Germany
  • Interests
    GURPS, The 'Thief' series, EVE Online, and more.
  • More About Me
    Good SciFi (Babylon 5... Perry Rhodan, in content if not in style, the new Galactica), good horror (Aliens, H. P. Lovecraft novels). Proudly on the far left of the political spectrum by most scales.

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    The Asgard gang (Nordic/Germanic heathenry)
  1. That's how I understand it too. Hence my question.
  2. Next heretical question: When and especially how did the opinion of the people change? Was it really the US citizens' own decision or was there... influence on them from whatever sources involved heavily?
  3. ...with predictable results. Linky
  4. Asking a heretical question now... "everyone has the right to own a gun" really what was meant when the 2nd amendment was created? The wording, to me, clearly refers to armed forces/militias... *grins, ducks and runs*
  5. Oh if I can choose, I'll obviously choose the deadlier toy. But I don't have to get the deadlier one, which is what I meant from the start.
  6. That may be part of it too, now that it's been mentioned. When I was an active volunteer in the German St. John's ambulance, one of the most basic things hammered into our heads was that "We don't want no fucking heroes. The law doesn't want to fucking heroes. You'll help exactly no one if you're lying in your own blood next to the patient." We made it a ritual to watch those typical "our heroes in the EMT/police/fire department" TV shows before our weekly meeting at the HQ and mock all the idiocy. "First of all, protect yourself. Do not run into danger. If you do, you're dead - if the danger doesn't kill you our boss will." That was about what was taught to us every moment. Now admittedly one can expect that an armed guard takes some more risk but really... can you fairly expect from anyone that they boldly, knowingly risk their own life for anything? They wanna live just as much as we do. It's easy to blame someone for not putting their lives on the line if it's their life and not ours...
  7. Thoughts on Jack Chick?

    Chicken tracts. Oh boy. Chicken tracts. They're almost totally unknown here in the Vaterland. Fortunately. I've looked at some online and they seem like an idiocy test to me. If you don't want to burn them all after reading halfway through one, you're a braindead moron. Even other christians should feel ashamed at how unbefuckinglievably dumb they are. That people are really, actually, trying to use them to find new victims converts speaks volumes about the US brand of christianity.
  8. Those of you who pointed out stopping power, yeah I guess that makes sense. Where stopping power is needed. If we're talking about "your standard spree shooter"... that one's not exactly heading for a fight against anyone who's in a position to even try and fight back. Just how much "more stopping power" do you need when your aim is to kill as many totally shock-and-awe'd, unarmed, helpless civilians as possible? So yeah, as the bangstick of choice for soldiers (or arguably cops, where cops have to fear they'll need that much firepower - it's not the case everywhere you look) it's certainly a good thing. I referred to what difference it makes for a spree shooter. Not that I'd mind if such a bastard picks the "wrong weapon", meaning one that does as little damage as possible to his victims. Just sayin'.
  9. I didn't want to comment on anything at all in this thread and have successfully avoided it until now, but now I can't help myself. Haven't read any postings in here so if I repeat something that's told already, so much the better I guess. What the fuck is the ruckus about "assault rifles" anyway? Alrighty. The kind of gun everyone imagines when that term is used (I seem to remember that the official definition's different anyway...) is a gun of rifle form (read: long barrel) that can fire semi-auto - or even full auto, depending on whom you ask - and probably has a decent magazine size, say some 20 to 30 rounds total. If we ban them, how will that affect future shootings, or rather shooters? If the shooter can just as easily get a handgun, where's the meaningful difference? Those shootings don't tend to happen at long range so a long barrel isn't too much of an advantage, and could actually be a disadvantage perhaps, in very close quarters. Countless pistols can do semi-auto too. Okay magazine size is a difference but if the madman is somewhat skilled, having to change mags a few more times won't be that much of a slowdown either. So really, where the fuck is the important difference here? Demanding an "assault rife" ban will surely feel good to some, but what good will it do? Not much, as I see it. *back to lurker mode...?*
  10. How "convenient". Yup if the public should demand Consequences(TM) after the killings, guess who'll get the blame so that the higher-ups can continue to do their thing? But yes it also illustrates that just because Someone With A Gun(TM) is there doesn't have to mean jack shit. What kind of gun did the dude have (some kind of pistol I assume, or at best maybe a shotgun)? Would he have been able to hold his ground against a madman without any fear for his life, armed with a semi-auto rifle? Let's tell it like it is: More weapons, whether for such guards, for teachers, or whatever... can at best somewhat limit the body count. And that's if they are both competent and shoot and hit first. And several other "if"'s probably that I'm not thinking of right now. Arguably better than nothing but everyone ask yourself now: If The Man(TM) tells you "we've done Things(TM) to limit the body count in future shootings", do you feel that that's even just nearly enough? The core question, as I see it, is still "Why the ever-loving fuck do people snap so regularly and what can we do to prevent their snapping?". Everything else is just an attempt at damage control... mitigating the symptoms while accepting the cause.
  11. Twin Peaks

    Gotta love Twin Peaks. Still haven't watched that 3rd season and fully expect it to have a different feel, but that doesn't change the fact that TP is amazingly surreal and cool
  12. Kind of relevant I guess... How the NRA lost its mind
  13. 100 % agreed. If shit hits fan, an Armed Sovereign Citizen(TM) or whatnot may possibly be able to turn away the first few recruits sent to tell him "Do this or else"... but the moment the real toys are brought out you're toast. Even on the off-chance that you had an RPG and could blow an approaching tank off its tracks, just wait until Death From Above(TM). That, sadly, I'm not sure I can agree to. Right now, certainly, you're right. But the world's steadily going toward literal neofeudalism, where the Golden Rule applies (He who has the gold makes the rules). Enough of that and I bet you some rich asshole will send combat forces against some bloke who just... dunno... happens to have his house on the spot where the asshole wants the pool for his newest villa or somesuch. Of course this would also assume the rich asshole can make soldiers do his bidding, but if inequality increases some more, wanna bet that for a (from the 1 %'s perspective) small fee you'll eventually be able to rent entire companies of armed forces, or even genuine mercenary gangs? Yes this is very dystopian, but can you really, with conviction, say it won't ever happen? Look around the world now and answer that question to yourself.
  14. Some seem to think there's exactly one kind of reason for why shootings happen. Those who think that way may want to reconsider. For all I know, the typical spree shooter isn't exactly concerned that he (it's usually a male) won't survive. Quite the opposite actually, most of them seem to want to go out in a blaze of (sick) glory. No matter how many armed guards you post in any school, unless you can also implement perfect thought control/surveillance, a shooter must first start committing the killing before they can step in. Maybe armed guards at every corner would somewhat limit the victim count, but why does anyone think guards will prevent the entire thing from happening? Arguably that might perhaps be better than doing nothing at all (but then, guards are only people too... how long until someone either snaps due to some weird reason, or seriously misunderstands something, and becomes the killer instead of the savior? And what will everyone say after that happened?), but is that really the best one can come up with? Or should we perhaps investigate (seriously!) the why of the shootings? Why do some want to, basically, take as many people with them as they can before they get gunned down?
  15. Ex-Christian Chat Room on Discord

    I just maaaaay be there too... no guarantees as that's during dead man's wake as we call it (around 3am) but who knows. If I can't make it tonight I hope to catch you some other time